ABINGTON BANCORP: Signs MOU to End Suit Over Susquehanna Merger---------------------------------------------------------------Abington Bancorp, Inc., has entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding to resolve a class action lawsuit filed inPennsylvania Court in connection with its merger with SusquehannaBancshares, Inc., according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 17, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed inthe Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,against the directors of Abington Bancorp, Inc., and SusquehannaBancshares, Inc., RSD Capital vs. Robert W. White, et al., C.A.No. 2011-06590. The lawsuit in Montgomery County alleged that thenamed directors, in approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, byand between Abington and Susquehanna, dated January 26, 2011, andSusquehanna, by entering into the Merger Agreement, intentionallyinterfered with a contractual relationship between Abington andits shareholders and interfered with a prospective economicadvantage of the Company's shareholders. Plaintiffs in theMontgomery County lawsuit, among other things, requested anunspecified amount of monetary damages as well as a temporaryrestraining order with respect to consummation of the merger. OnApril 13, 2011, upon consideration of the defendants' PreliminaryObjections, the lawsuit in Montgomery County was dismissed withprejudice.

On March 25, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed byseparate plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, PhiladelphiaCounty, Pennsylvania, against the Company, the Company's directors(other than Jack J. Sandoski) and Susquehanna, Exum, et al. vs.Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 110302814. The lawsuit inPhiladelphia County, which was also brought as a shareholders'derivative suit on behalf of Abington, generally alleges, amongother things, that the Abington Board of Directors breached itsfiduciary duties in connection with its approval of the MergerAgreement in that the consideration offered to Abington'sshareholders in the Merger was alleged to be inadequate and theprocess used to negotiate the Merger Agreement was alleged to beunfair, and that such breaches of fiduciary duty were exacerbatedby preclusive transaction protection devices. The PhiladelphiaCounty complaint also alleges that Abington and Susquehanna aidedand abetted the Abington Board of Directors in breaching itsfiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in Philadelphia Countyrequested, among other things, an unspecified amount of monetarydamages and injunctive relief. Both lawsuits also allege that thedisclosure provided to the Company's shareholders in the jointproxy statement/prospectus of Abington and Susquehanna, datedMarch 18, 2011, and included in the registration statement on FormS-4 filed by Susquehanna with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (File No. 333-172626), failed to provide requiredmaterial information necessary for Abington's shareholders to makea fully informed decision concerning the Merger Agreement and thetransactions contemplated thereby.

On April 25, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks anduncertainties inherent in litigation, Abington and the other nameddefendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with theplaintiffs in the Philadelphia County lawsuit. Under the terms ofthe memorandum, Abington, the other named defendants and theplaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to courtapproval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated inthe memorandum, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Abington has agreed tomake available additional information to its shareholders. Inreturn, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuitand to withdraw all motions filed in connection with the lawsuit.

In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek anaward of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $250,000subject to court approval, and Abington has agreed not to opposeplaintiffs' application. The amount of the fee award to classcounsel will ultimately be determined by the Court. This paymentwill not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid inthe merger. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,it is anticipated that it will resolve and release all claims inall actions that were or could have been brought challenging anyaspect of the proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and anydisclosure made in connection therewith. There can be noassurance that the parties will ultimately enter into astipulation of settlement or that the court will approve thesettlement even if the parties were to enter into suchstipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement ascontemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to besent to Abington's shareholders prior to a hearing before thecourt to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' feeapplication.

The Company says the settlement will not affect the timing of thespecial meeting of shareholders of Abington scheduled for May 6,2011, in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, to vote upon a proposalto adopt the Merger Agreement. Abington and the other defendantsdeny all of the allegations in the lawsuit and believe thedisclosures previously included in the Joint ProxyStatement/Prospectus are appropriate under the law. Nevertheless,the Company and the other defendants have agreed to settle theputative class action litigation in order to avoid costlylitigation and its inherent risks.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, andcontinue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided andabetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged inany of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuit, andexpressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligentlyand scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legalburdens and are entering into the contemplated settlement solelyto eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and toput the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. TheCompany says nothing in the Current Report on Form 8-K, theMemorandum of Understanding or any stipulation of settlement shallbe deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality underapplicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth in the report.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court: Western District ofArkansas, alleges that Acxiom withheld information about asignificant decline in its international operations; that thecompany failed to properly and timely account for impaired assetsrelated to its international operations; and that, as a result,statements made by the defendants about the company's financialperformance and expected earnings were misleading.

Law firm Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman filed a similar classaction suit on April 28, according to a statement from the firm.The statement uses the exact same terminology as Izard Nobel'sgrievance to classify Acxiom's alleged offenses. "With regard torecent media coverage about a class action suit filed againstAcxiom on behalf of an institutional investor, it is the belief ofAcxiom that it has acted in accordance with the law and has notdone anything improper," the Little Rock, Ark.-based company saidin a statement. "We intend to vigorously defend the merits of thecase."

Former Acxiom CEO John Meyer and former EVP and CFO ChristopherWolf, who both resigned on March 30, are named as defendants insuit, in addition to the company itself. The complaint statesthat Meyer and Wolf are liable for making false statements,failing to disclose adverse facts, deceiving the public andinflating the price of Acxiom stock.

The suit maintains that Acxiom stock traded at "inflated prices"while the company withheld knowledge of a decline in operations.Once the "revelations reached the market," around the time ofMeyer's departure, stocks fell 27.6%, according to the suit.

The allegations date back to October 27, 2010, when Acxiomannounced its second quarter 2011 earnings. On an earnings call,Meyer "made numerous positive statements about the company'sbusiness, operations and prospects," according to the suit.Similar statements were allegedly made during a Q3 2011 earningscall, as well.

The plaintiffs are requesting damages and interest, legal fees andother relief as the court may deem proper.

Izard Nobel did not respond to numerous interview requests.

AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending-------------------------------------------------------------On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint wasfiled in the United States District Court for the Middle Districtof Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc., and certain of its currentand former senior executives. Additional putative securitiesclass actions were filed in the United States District Court forthe Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating theputative securities class action lawsuits and certain derivativeactions for pre-trial purposes. In the same order, the Courtappointed the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippiand the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-leadplaintiffs for the putative class. On December 10, 2010, theCourt also consolidated an ERISA class action lawsuit with theputative securities class actions and derivative actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,consolidated class action complaint which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The SecuritiesComplaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleadingstatements and failed to disclose material facts about theCompany's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,particularly relating to the Company's policies and practicesregarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home healthprospective payment system and the related alleged impact on theCompany's business, financial condition, operations and prospects.The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action maybe maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons whopurchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005, andSeptember 28, 2010. All defendants have moved to dismiss theSecurities Complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

AMEDISYS INC: Motion to Dismiss ERISA-Violation Suit Pending------------------------------------------------------------A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit allegingviolations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ispending, according to Amedisys, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putativeclass action complaints were filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,certain of its current and former senior executives and members ofthe Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee. The suitsallege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Actsince January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, respectively. Theplaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and aclass of similarly situated participants in the Company's 401(k)plan. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached theirfiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during therespective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky andimprudent retirement investment because of the Company's allegedimproper business practices. The complaints seek a determinationthat the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award ofunspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief. OnDecember 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative ERISA classactions with putative securities class actions and derivativeactions for pre-trial purposes. In addition, on December 10,2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and interim liaisoncounsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell(the Co-ERISA Plaintiffs), filed an amended, consolidated classaction complaint, which supersedes the earlier-filed ERISA classaction complaints. The ERISA Complaint seeks a determination thatthe action may be maintained as a class action on behalf ofthemselves and a class of similarly situated participants in theCompany's 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008, through present. Allof the defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA Complaint.

AMERICAN INT'L: Liberty Mutual Opposes Proposed Class Action Deal-----------------------------------------------------------------Liberty Mutual Group on April 29 disclosed that its Ohio Casualtyand Safeco units filed their opposition papers to a proposed"settlement" of the class action suit pending against AmericanInternational Group for their decades of intentionallyunderreporting workers compensation premium.

In Liberty Mutual Group's view, the "settlement" proposed by sevenIntervenors -- ACE, Auto-Owners, Companion, FirstComp, Hartford,Technology and Travelers) is in AIG's self-interest and theinterest of several intervenors -- but it is detrimental to theclass of over 500 insurance companies victimized by AIG's admittedwrongdoing.

The currently known extent of AIG's underreporting is $6.1billion, nearly three times the amount that the settlement ispredicated upon. Conservatively, the actual damage to theinsurance industry caused by AIG historic misbehavior exceeds$1.5 billion.

The two Liberty Mutual Group units stepped forward two years agoto make certain that AIG adequately addresses their systemicpractice of underreporting workers compensation premium, and theyremain in the best position to adequately represent the class andprosecute the claims against AIG. The proposed settlement isnothing more than an attempt by AIG to circumvent an accurateaccounting by a court-appointed statistical expert of AIG'sdecades of actual underreporting so the company could sidestep itsown culpability and avoid exemplary damages. Liberty Mutual isconfident that the Court will see the proposed settlement as thebyproduct of a collusive process between AIG and hopelesslyconflicted parties.

About Liberty Mutual Group

"Helping people live safer, more secure lives" since 1912, Boston-based Liberty Mutual Group is a diversified global insurer andthird largest property and casualty insurer in the U.S. based onA.M. Best Company's report of 2010 net written premium. The Groupalso ranks 71(st) on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporationsin the U.S. based on 2009 revenue. As of December 31, 2010,Liberty Mutual Group had $112.4 billion in consolidated assets,$95.4 billion in consolidated liabilities, and $33.2 billion inannual consolidated revenue.

Liberty Mutual Group offers a wide range of insurance products andservices, including personal automobile, homeowners, workerscompensation, property, commercial automobile, general liability,global specialty, group disability, reinsurance and surety.Liberty Mutual Group -- http://www.libertymutualgroup.com/-- employs over 45,000 people in more than 900 offices throughout theworld

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class actionagainst American Superconductor Corp. and certain of its officers.The class action (Civil Action No. 11-cv-10743), pending in theDistrict of Massachusetts, is on behalf of a class of all personswho purchased AMSC during the period from July 29, 2010 throughApril 5, 2011.

If you are a shareholder who purchased AMSC securities during theClass Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for theclass, you have until June 6, 2011 to seek appointment from theCourt. A copy of the complaint can be obtained athttp://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529, tollfree.

During the Class Period, the Company's quarterly revenues werelargely derived from one primary customer, Sinovel Wind Group Co.,Ltd. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failedto disclose that: (1) the Company was providing Sinovel withcontracted shipments in excess of its needs; (2) Sinovel was notpaying AMSC for certain contracted shipments; (3) the Company wascontinuing to provide Sinovel with contracted shipments eventhough Sinovel was not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) theCompany was improperly recognizing revenue on certain contractedshipments provided to Sinovel; and (5) that the Company lackedadequate internal and financial controls.http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=220384On April 5, 2011, the Company disclosed that Sinovel had recentlyrefused to accept contracted shipments, and believed that Sinovelintended to reduce its level of inventory before accepting anyfurther shipments. The Company said that as a result its earningsfor the 2010 fiscal fourth quarter and year would be substantiallybelow the Company's previous forecasts. Furthermore, the Companyrevealed that Sinovel had yet to pay AMSC for certain contractedshipments that occurred during the 2010 fiscal year. The Companyacknowledged that the accumulated aged accounts receiveable due to payment delays and Sinovel's recent refusal to acceptMarch deliveries raised questions about the appropriateness of thetiming of its revenue recognition on approximately $56 million ofunpaid shipments in the second, third and fourth quarters offiscal 2010. On this news, AMSC shares declined $10.41 per share,or nearly 42%, to close at $14.47 per share on April 6, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas ofcorporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has ,offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Founded by thelate Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class actionbar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities classactions. Today, more than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firmcontinues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rightsof the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty,and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerousmultimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

APPLE INC: Sued for Invasion of Privacy Rights----------------------------------------------Arun Gupta, individually and on behalf of others similarlysituated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02110 (N.D. Calif.April 28, 2011), is a complaint against Apple, Inc.'s unlawfulcollection of information correlated to its customer'sgeolocation, in "wholesale violation of numerous state and federallaws, including the Stored Communications Act and the ElectronicCommunications Privacy Act.

According to the Complaint, Apple has consistently maintained thatiPhone customers who object to having their geolocation collectedby Apple can manually turn off the "Locations Services" functionthrough the device's settings. However, contrary to the Company'sstatements, Apple "intentionally designed the iPhone to regularlytransmit information correlated to users' geolocation to Apple'sservers, after a customer turns "Off" Locations Services."

Plaintiff Gupta is a natural person and citizen of Pennsylvania.Apple manufactures the popular smartphone, the iPhone. Apple alsodeveloped the proprietary software used to operate the iPhone.

BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Shareholder Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The presiding judge for the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida granted BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.'smotion for judgment as a matter of law and entered judgments infavor of defendants as to all of plaintiffs' claims in ashareholder class action brought against the Company and certainof its directors and executive officers, according to theCompany's April 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

On November 18, 2010, the jury in the lawsuit returned a verdictin favor of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company'sClass A Common Stock during the period from April 26, 2007, toOctober 26, 2007. At that time, the Company stated that itbelieved that the verdict was contrary to law and would be setaside either by the Court or on appeal.

BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alan B.Levan commented, "We are obviously very pleased with this result.It goes without saying that this has been a very difficult timefor banks in Florida. BankAtlantic lost money and Bancorp's stockprice declined largely because of the collapse of the Florida realestate market, a risk that was fully disclosed."

BankAtlantic Bancorp previously filed a motion for sanctions thatthe Judge denied without prejudice to reasserting following entryof these judgments. BankAtlantic Bancorp intends to seek recoveryof its attorneys' fees and costs against the plaintiffs and theircounsel.

BP PLC: Units Face Class Action Over Defective POS System---------------------------------------------------------The law firms of SeegerWeiss LLP and Lee Tran & Liang, APLCdisclosed that they jointly filed a class action lawsuit onApril 29 in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California on behalf of owners of BP and ARCO gasstation franchises and am/pm convenience store franchises. Thedefendants are BP West Coast Products LLC and BP Products NorthAmerica, Inc., both subsidiaries of BP p.l.c., and Retalix LTD.

The wrongful and illegal conduct set forth in the complaintinclude the following: (i) BP Defendants required all franchiseesto install a new centralized point of sale computer systemdeveloped by co-defendant Retalix LTD that is defective which inturn, resulted in substantial damages to the franchisees such aslost operation time, lost revenue, lost or inaccurate inventory,lost receivables and cash, and increased operating costs andburdens; (ii) BP's illegal manipulation of gas supply and pricing;(iii) BP's improper direct control of and/or pricing by third-party vendors; (iv) BP's policy of forcing sale of items andcollection of fees for which Plaintiffs receive no compensation.

There are over 1600 franchised BP and ARCO gas stations and am/pmstores across the country, all of whom are part of the proposedclass for this lawsuit. The Service Station FranchiseAssociation, Inc. (SSFA), which represents a large number of thefranchisees, has been instrumental in assisting the plaintiffs intheir quest to bring the defendants to justice via this action.

SeegerWeiss is one of the nation's preeminent plaintiffs' lawfirms with offices in New York City, Los Angeles and other cities.It specializes in mass tort and class action litigation. Thefirm's reputation for exceptional results, leadership andinnovation has resulted in its appointment to numerous plaintiffs'steering or executive committees in a variety of high-profilemultidistrict litigations throughout the United States. Among itsrecent accomplishments include acting as Lead Counsel forPlaintiffs in the Vioxx Litigation against Merck & Co. thatresulted in historic $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largestsettlements of a mass litigation in United States history.

LTL, based in Los Angeles, is one of the most technologically-savvy business trial law firms in the country. LTL has extensiveexperience -- and achieved significant successes -- handling high-stakes matters involving some of the most sophisticated computertechnologies. Founded in 2003 as the first spin-off of QuinnEmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, one of the leading businesstrial law firms in the world, LTL has garnered its shares ofaccolades and successes. LTL attorneys have consistently beenhonored by their peers and legal publications as among the risingstars in the legal profession.

The non-profit Berkeley based Prison Law Office has filed alawsuit arguing that race should not be a determining factor whenplacing an inmate on lockdown status. Inmates are sometimesplaced into temporary confinement following a fight or riot.

Inmates often separate themselves by race while in prison, andsometimes there are fights between the different ethnic groups.Often times when a large fight breaks out, inmates in the entirearea are put on lockdown.

Lt. David Fish at Sierra Conservation Center says it is done forsafety reasons. "The inmates out on the yard have their own rulesthat they seem to go by," says Lt. Fish. "The inmates want tohelp one another out, and if one inmate has been affected by onerace, the rest of that race wants to stand up and look out forhim."

Lt. Fish says inmates are placed back into the regular prisonprogram as quickly and safely as possible.

"We need to look out for the inmates, staff and public to makesure that the disturbance does not spread," he adds.

The lawsuit claims that there are around 350 full or partial racelockdowns annually across the 30 state prisons.

CAPELLA EDUCATION: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota appointedthe Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as leadplaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP, as leadcounsel, in the securities class action lawsuit filed againstCapella Education Company, according to the Company's April 26,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit,captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and onBehalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella EducationCompany, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in theU.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaintnames the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, andalleges the Company and the named defendants made false ormisleading public statements about the Company's business andprospects during the time period from February 16, 2010, throughAugust 13, 2010, in violation of federal securities laws, and thatthese statements artificially inflated the trading price of theCompany's common stock to the detriment of shareholders whopurchased shares during that time. The plaintiff seekscompensatory damages for the purported class. Since that time,substantially similar complaints making similar allegationsagainst the same defendants for the same purported class periodhave been filed with the federal court. The Company has not yetresponded to these complaints. Pursuant to the Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 13, 2011, the Courtappointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System aslead plaintiff and Abraham, Fruchter and Twersley, LLP, as leadcounsel. The Company anticipates a consolidated amended complaintwill be filed by mid-June and the plaintiffs will seek substantialdamages.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun. Because of the manyquestions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of thislegal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on informationavailable to the Company at present, the Company cannot reasonablyestimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, havenot accrued any liability associated with this action.

Casey Council ($13.5 million) and the EPA ($10 million) haveagreed to share the monetary burden to compensate residentsaffected by the botched closure of the Stevensons Rd Landfill.

Class action members claim the methane gas leaks from theStevensons Rd Landfill have diminished property values andinterfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes.

The court heard on April 29 that a pollution abatement noticeissued to the council by the Environment Protection Authority lastyear was a key to the settlement being proposed.

The notice stated that the council must undertake works to ensurethat by July 29, 2012, landfill does not exceed 1 per cent byvolume of methane and 1.5% volume of carbon dioxide at certainmeasuring points.

Slater and Gordon QC Jim Delaney said the document provided"considerable confidence for plaintiffs in terms of future risks".

Thirty of the 771 property owners have lodged objections to thesettlement scheme.

Several of the objectors are present in court.

If the settlement is approved, Slater and Gordon will take its$6 million cut, leaving $17.5 million to be split among the 771Brookland Greens residents.

CELANESE CORP: Settlement of Plumbing Suits in Canada Pending-------------------------------------------------------------A settlement of class action lawsuits filed in Canada against aunit of Celanese Corporation remains pending, according to theCompany's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,2011.

CNA Holdings LLC, a US subsidiary of the Company, which includedthe US business now conducted by the Ticona business that isincluded in the Advanced Engineered Materials segment, along withShell Oil Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company and others,has been a defendant in a series of lawsuits, including a numberof class actions, alleging that plastics manufactured by thesecompanies that were utilized in the production of plumbing systemsfor residential property were defective or caused such plumbingsystems to fail. Based on, among other things, the findings ofoutside experts and the successful use of Ticona's acetalcopolymer in similar applications, CNA Holdings does not believeTicona's acetal copolymer was defective or caused the plumbingsystems to fail. In addition, in many cases, CNA Holdings'potential future exposure may be limited by invocation of thestatute of limitations.

In November 1995, CNA Holdings, DuPont and Shell entered intonational class action settlements that called for the replacementof plumbing systems of claimants who have had qualifying leaks, aswell as reimbursements for certain leak damage. In connectionwith such settlements, the three companies had agreed to fundthese replacements and reimbursements up to an aggregate amount of$950 million. As of March 31, 2011, the aggregate funding is$1,111 million due to additional contributions and fundingcommitments made primarily by other parties. The time to fileclaims for the class in Cox, et al. v. Hoechst CelaneseCorporation, et al., No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County,Tennessee) has expired. Accordingly, the court ruled the terms ofthe Cox settlement have been fully performed. The entitypreviously established to administer all Cox related claims wasdissolved on September 24, 2010.

The class actions in Canada are subject to a pending settlementthat would result in the dismissal of those actions. In all ofthese actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for allegeddamages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing. Damage amountshave generally not been specified but these actions generally donot involve (either individually or in the aggregate) a largenumber of homes.

The Company says its remaining plumbing action accruals recordedin the unaudited consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2011,and December 31, 2010 is $9 million.

CELERA CORP: Board Sued Over Proposed Acquisition by Quest----------------------------------------------------------Jon M. McCreary, individually and on behalf of others similarlysituated, v. Celera Corp., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01618 (N.D.Calif. April 1, 2011), asserts claims against the board ofdirectors of Celera Corp. for breaches of fiduciary duty, andagainst the Company and Quest Diagnostics, Inc., and its whollyowned subsidiary Spark Acquisition Corporation, for aiding andabetting those breaches, in connection with the proposedacquisition of Celera by Quest.

Mr. McCreary also brings an individual claim against Celera andthe Board for their violations of Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. According to theplaintiff, defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts inviolation of sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act.

In the Complaint, Mr. McCreary says the individual defendantsbreached their fiduciary duties by among other things, impedingand erecting barriers to discourage other strategic alternativesincluding offers from interested parties for the Company or itsassets.

These barriers include:

-- a strict "no shop" provision;

-- a strict "standstill" provision which prohibits, except under extremely limited circumstances, the defendants from even engaging in discussions or negotiations relating to proposals regarding alternative business combinations;

-- a matching rights provision; and

-- a $23.45 million termination fee to be paid if Celera terminates the proposed acquisition.

On March 18, 2011, Celera and Quest jointly announced that theCompany and Quest had entered into a definitive merger agreement,pursuant to which Quest will commence a tender offer to purchaseall of the outstanding shares of Celera common stock for $8.00 pershare in cash, followed by a second-step merger, in a transactionvalued at approximately $671 million.

The deal price includes Celera's cash and short-term investments,which total $327 million and $117 million in deterred tax creditsand net operating losses. Excluding those items, the proposedacquisition has been valued at approximately $227 million.

Mr. McCreary, a resident of Nevada, is a holder of Celera commonstock.

Celera is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters located at1401 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, California. Celera stock ispublicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker "CRA".Celera is a healthcare business delivering personalized diseasemanagement through a combination of products and servicesincorporating proprietary discoveries.

Quest is a leading provider of diagnostic testing, information andservices that patients and doctors need to make better healthcaredecisions.

CERADYNE INC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Calif. Labor Law Violations-----------------------------------------------------------------Ceradyne, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit in Californiaalleging that the Company did not provide employees with meal andrest periods in accordance with California law, according to theCompany's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,2011.

A class action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2011, in theCalifornia Superior Court for Orange County (Civil Action No. 30-2011-00465269), in which it was asserted that the representativeplaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative classmembers, were not provided with meal and rest periods inaccordance with California law, and were not paid overtime at anappropriate overtime rate. The Company has not yet filed aresponse to this lawsuit, nor has discovery commenced.Accordingly, the impact of the outcome of this case isundeterminable at this time.

Plaintiff asks the Court for an order awarding restitution anddisgorgement of all monies paid by plaintiff and the Class Membersor ill-gotten gains realized by defendants as a direct result ofdefendants' unlawful and unfair business practices.

Plaintiff says defendants took a security interest in the assetsof plaintiff and Class Members, a "prohibited transaction" underIRA regulations, and in breach of their Account Agreement withClass Members. Individual Retirement Accounts lose their taxexempt status if the IRA owner engages in a "prohibitedtransaction" with their IRA.

26 U.S.C. 4975(c)(1)(B) provides that the direct or indirect,"lending of money or other extension of credit between a plan anda disqualified person" will be considered a prohibitedtransaction.

According to Ms. Yoshioka, defendants knew or should have knownthat requiring an IRA owner to pledge the IRA owner's non-IRAassets for the benefit of the defendants would result in the IRAowner engaging in a prohibited transaction and thus losing the taxexempt status of their retirement savings account.

Further, defendants knew or should have known that requiring anIRA owner to indemnify the defendants against a loss orguaranteeing payment to the defendants in the event of a losssustained in the IRA would result in the IRA owner engaging in aprohibited transaction and thus losing the exempt status of theirretirement savings account.

Ms. Yoshioka is a resident of Redding, Calif. She opened anIndividual Retirement Account with defendants in December 2010.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a holding company which engagesin securities brokerage, banking services, and related financialservices through its subsidiaries. It is headquartered at 211Main Street, in San Francisco, California.

Schwab Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of The CharlesSchwab Corporation. It is headquartered at 211 Main Street, inSan Francisco, California.

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of SchwabHoldings, Inc., and is the custodian for plaintiff's retirementaccount. It is also located at 211 Main Street, in San Francisco,California.

DIRECTV: Suit Over Cancellation Fees Granted Class Action Status----------------------------------------------------------------A lawsuit for California DIRECTV customers represented by TheEvans Law Firm, Consumer Watchdog, the Law Offices of EdieMermelstein, Milstein Adelman and Sprenger + Lang by DIRECTVcustomers who were alleged to have been illegally charged "earlycancellation penalties" -- fees of up to $480 -- has been granted"class action" status by a California court, potentially leadingto millions of dollars in refunds. DIRECTV is the largestsatellite TV provider in the U.S. with over 16 million customers,and its principal place of business is located in El Segundo,California.

Los Angeles Superior Judge Emilie Elias issued the ruling lastFriday in a suit filed in September 2008 on behalf of DIRECTVcustomers who were charged a cancellation penalty when theycancelled service. The complaint alleges that DIRECTV applied itsunlawful penalty provision to all of its customers, including, insome cases, customers who terminated because the satelliteequipment stopped working or they were no longer able to receiveservice when they moved. The complaint also alleges that in othercases, DIRECTV would unilaterally extend a consumer's "programmingcommitment" by a year or two if malfunctioning equipment needed tobe replaced or the customer decided to upgrade receivers and thencharge the fee if the customer stopped service after that. Insome cases, according to the suit, DIRECTV took the fees fromtheir customers' bank or credit card accounts without theirpermission.

The lawsuit alleges that the fees are illegal under California'sconsumer protection laws. In addition to arguing that itscancellation penalties are legal, DIRECTV claimed that thecompany's recent "settlement" with the Attorneys General ofCalifornia and other states resolved the plaintiffs' complaints.The court rejected that argument, specifically noting that theAttorney General settlement did not bar DIRECTV from applying thecancellation fee in the future.

"We have alleged in the complaint that this type of businesspractice is a direct violation of California's consumer protectionlaws. The court's ruling certifying the class is a step towardsachieving justice for DIRECTV customers that were charged anillegal penalty," said Ingrid M. Evans of The Evans Law Firm,San Francisco, CA, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Another attorney for the plaintiffs, Pamela Pressley of ConsumerWatchdog said, "DIRECTV's cancellation penalties were designed tohold their customers hostage and keep them from switching to othercompanies even when they could no longer receive the servicebecause of faulty equipment or because they moved. Now, afternearly three years of delaying tactics by DIRECTV, its Californiacustomers will finally have their day in court to seek refunds andto stop DIRECTV's improper cancellation penalties."

Certifying the case as a "class action" means that all Californiaconsumers who were victimized by DIRECTV's alleged unlawfulactions and do not choose to opt out of the action will berepresented in the litigation.

This action was later consolidated with a related action broughtby Consumer Watchdog, the Law Offices of Edie Mermelstein andMilstein Adelman, LLP and on behalf Long Beach resident KathyGreiner. Similar suits were filed in federal courts throughoutthe country. They have since been consolidated in one federalcourt, the Central District of California, Southern Division,located in Santa Ana.

EI DUPONT: Awaits Results of Experts' Studies in "Leach" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company is awaiting results of apanel of experts' studies on whether exposure to perfluorooctanoicacid (PFOA) results to human disease, according to the Company'sApril 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, wasfiled in West Virginia state court against DuPont and the LubeckPublic Service District. The complaint alleged that residentsliving near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or maysuffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA indrinking water. The relief sought included damages for medicalmonitoring, diminution of property values and punitive damagesplus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA. DuPont andattorneys for the class reached a settlement agreement in 2004 andas a result, the Company established accruals of $108 million in2004. The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000residents. As defined by the court, the class includes thoseindividuals who have consumed, for at least one year, watercontaining 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) or greater of PFOA fromany of six designated public water sources or from sole sourceprivate wells.

In July 2005, the Company paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees andexpenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, whichclass counsel has designated to fund a community health project.The Company is also funding a series of health studies by anindependent science panel of experts in the communities exposed toPFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether anyprobable link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease.The Company expects the independent science panel to completethese health studies between 2009 and year-end 2012 at a totalestimated cost of $32 million. In addition, the Company isproviding state-of-the-art water treatment systems designed toreduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts,including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), until thescience panel determines that PFOA does not cause disease or untilapplicable water standards can be met without such treatment. Allof the water treatment systems are operating.

The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted inthe lawsuit except for personal injury claims. If the independentscience panel concludes that no probable link exists betweenexposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would alsoresolve personal injury claims. If it concludes that a probablelink does exist between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, thenDuPont would also fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoringprogram to pay for such medical testing. In this event,plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injuryclaims. All other claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed bythe settlement.

DuPont believes that it is remote that the panel will find aprobable link. Therefore, at March 31, 2011, the Company has notestablished any accruals related to medical monitoring or personalinjury claims. However, there can be no assurance as to what theindependent science panel will conclude.

EI DUPONT: Appeals Court Affirms 2010 Judgment in West Va. Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------------The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment entered in2010 in favor of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company relating toa West Virginia class action lawsuit brought by water districtcustomers, according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2011.

At March 31, 2011, there were four actions pending brought by oron behalf of water district customers in New Jersey, Ohio and WestVirginia. The cases generally claim perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)contamination of drinking water and seek a variety of reliefincluding compensatory and punitive damages, testing, treatment,remediation and monitoring. In addition, the two New Jersey classactions and the Ohio action, brought by the Little Hocking WaterAssociation (LHWA), claim "imminent and substantial endangermentto health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservationand Recovery Act (RCRA). In the first quarter 2011, the courtpreliminarily approved the agreement in principle to settle thetwo New Jersey class actions for $8.3 million. The final approvalhearing is scheduled for the second quarter 2011. Discoverycontinues in the Ohio action. In the West Virginia class action,the court entered judgment for DuPont in the first quarter 2010,which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in April2011.

DuPont denies the claims alleged in these civil drinking wateractions and is defending itself vigorously.

EI DUPONT: Expects Med. Monitoring Enrollment Completed by 3Q 2011------------------------------------------------------------------E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company expects class members'enrollment in a medical monitoring program under its settlement ofa class action lawsuit captioned Perrine v DuPont to be completedby the third quarter of 2011, according to the Company's April 26,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a classaction captioned Perrine v DuPont, against DuPont that seeksrelief including the provision of remediation services andproperty value diminution damages for 7,000 residential propertiesin the vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, WestVirginia. The action also seeks medical monitoring for anundetermined number of residents in the class area. The smelterwas owned and operated by at least three companies between 1910and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950. DuPontperformed remedial measures at the request of EPA in the late1990s and in 2001, repurchased the site to facilitate and completethe remediation. The fall 2007 trial was conducted in fourphases: liability, medical monitoring, property and punitivedamages. The jury found against DuPont in all four phasesawarding $55.5 million for property remediation and $196.2 millionin punitive damages. In post trial motions, the court adopted theplaintiffs' forty-year medical monitoring plan estimated byplaintiffs to cost $130 million and granted plaintiffs' attorneyslegal fees of $127 million plus $8 million in expenses based onand included in the total jury award. DuPont appealed to the WestVirginia Supreme Court (the Court) seeking review of a number ofissues. The Court issued its decision on March 26, 2010,affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court'sdecision.

The Court conditionally affirmed the verdict, but reduced punitivedamages to $97.7 million. The Court reversed the trial court'sorder granting summary judgment to the adult plaintiffs on theissue of statute of limitations and ordered a new jury trial onthe sole issue of when the plaintiffs possessed requisiteknowledge to trigger the running of the statute.

In November 2010, plaintiffs and DuPont reached an agreement tosettle this matter for $70 million which the Company paid in thefirst quarter 2011. In addition, the agreement requires DuPont tofund a medical monitoring program. The initial set-up costsassociated with the program were included in the $70 million.

The Company says it will reassess its liability related to fundingthe medical monitoring program as eligible members of the classelect to participate and enroll in the program, as those costscannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Enrollment in theprogram is expected to be completed in the third quarter 2011. Asof March 31, 2011, the Company does not have any accruals relatedthis matter.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendantsfailed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company'sfinancial well-being, business operations and prospects.Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate thefollowing: (1) that Finisar was facing increased competition,which would make it necessary for the Company to offer largediscounts in order to retain certain customers; (2) that theCompany was experiencing a significant slowdown in business in andfrom China; (3) that the Company's recent revenue numbers were duein part to the buildup of inventory by Finisar's customers, andthat these customers would decrease the amount of products orderedfrom Finisar as they were left with an oversupply of inventory;(4) particular uncertainties and known trends regarding theCompany's revenue growth rate (including the fact that Finisarwould be unable to continue growing at the recent pace), asrequired by SEC regulations; (5) that the Company lacked adequateinternal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of theforegoing, defendants' statements about the Company's operationsand prospects lacked any reasonable basis when made.

On March 8, 2011, Finisar announced that its fourth quarter 2011revenues would be lower than analyst estimates and in "starkcontrast" to what defendants had intimated throughout the ClassPeriod. The Company disclosed that, during the quarter, it wouldbe impacted by the full three months of annual price negotiationswith telecom customers, certain customers being shut down for theChinese New Year in February, the adjustment of inventory levelsat some telecom customers, and an overall slowdown in Chinesebusiness.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $15.43 per share,or 38.54%, 9 to close on March 9, 2011, at $24.61 per share, onunusually heavy trading volume.

Finisar is a technology company for fiber optic subsystems andcomponents that enable high-speed voice, video and datacommunications for telecommunications, networking, storage,wireless, and cable TV applications.

Mr. Wade purchased Finisar securities at artificially inflatedprices during the Class Period and has been damaged as a result.

HOSPIRA INC: Appeal of Ruling in ERISA Suit Still Pending---------------------------------------------------------An appeal of a court ruling in favor of Hospira, Inc., andAbbott Laboratories in the lawsuit captioned Myla Nauman, JaneRoller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,Inc., remains pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Hospira has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleginggenerally that the spin-off of Hospira from Abbott Laboratoriesresulted in a mass termination of employees so as to interferewith the future attainment of benefits in violation of theEmployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The lawsuit wasfiled on November 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, and is captioned: Myla Nauman, JaneRoller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira,Inc. Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement in Abbott benefitplans, disgorgement of profits and attorneys fees. OnNovember 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert anadditional claim against Abbott and Hospira for breach offiduciary duty under ERISA. Hospira has been dismissed as adefendant with respect to the fiduciary duty claim. By Orderdated December 30, 2005, the Court granted class action status tothe lawsuit. As to the sole claim against Hospira, the courtcertified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who wereparticipants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment withAbbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004,as a result of the spin-off of the HPD [Hospital ProductsDivision] /creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22,2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the AbbottBenefit Plans on the date of their terminations."

Hospira denies all material allegations asserted against it in thecomplaint. Trial of this matter has concluded. On April 22,2010, the court issued a ruling in favor of Hospira and Abbott onall counts. Plaintiffs have appealed that verdict. In 2008,Hospira received notice from Abbott requesting that Hospiraindemnify Abbott for all liabilities that Abbott may incur inconnection with this litigation. Hospira denies any obligation toindemnify Abbott for the claims asserted against Abbott in thislitigation.

HUNGRY MACHINE: Sued for Selling Vouchers With Expiry Dates-----------------------------------------------------------Sarah Gosling, on behalf of herself and others similarly situatedv. Hungry Machine, Inc., d/b/a LivingSocial.com, Case No.11-cv-02094 (N.D. Calif. April 28, 2011), accuses the web-basedcompany of selling gift certificates, called "vouchers" bydefendant, with expiration dates that are deceptive and illegalunder both federal and state laws.

LivingSocial offers discounted deals on a variety of products andservices, including restaurants and bars, salons and spas,clothing and other retail items, fitness classes, and otherrecreational courses, by directly partnering with the retailbusinesses and merchants that provide the products or services.

Once consumers purchase a LivingSocial gift certificate for aparticular "Daily Deal," LivingSocial charges each consumer theadvertised purchase amount. LivingSocial then sends aconfirmatory e-mail to each purchasing consumer with a link to itsWeb site for downloading and printing the LivingSocial giftcertificate, which then may be redeemed with the retail businessoffering the product or service for a limited period of time.

According to the Complaint, the federal Credit Card AccountabilityResponsibility and Disclosure Act and the Electronic Fund TransferAct, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 693, el seq., specifically prohibit the saleand issuance of gift certificates, such as those sold byLivingSocial, with expiration periods of less than five years,while California Civil Code Sec. 1749.5 prohibits the sale andissuance of gift certificates with any expiration period.

Ms. Gosling is a resident of San Francisco, California. During therelevant time period, Ms. Gosling received offers for products andservices from LivingSocial and purchased a gift certificate basedon representations and claims made by LivingSocial.

Hungry Machine, Inc., d/b/a LivingSocial.com, is a privately-heldcompany incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.LivingSocial's corporate headquarters is located in WashingtonD.C. LivingSocial is registered to do business in the state ofCalifornia and does business in the state of California.LivingSocial markets, sells and issues its gift certificates tomillions of consumers throughout the United States, includinghundreds of thousands of consumers in California and in SanFrancisco County.

HURON CONSULTING: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Set for May 6--------------------------------------------------------------A fairness hearing has been set for May 6, 2011, with respect tothe final approval of a settlement in a consolidated shareholderclass action lawsuit against Huron Consulting Group Inc.,according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2011.

In August 2009, the SEC commenced an investigation with respect tothe restatement and an investigation into the allocation of timewithin a certain practice group. The Company also conducted aseparate inquiry, in response to the initial inquiry from the SEC,into the allocation of time within a certain practice group. Thismatter had no impact on billings to the Company's clients, butcould have impacted the timing of when revenue was recognized.Based on the Company's internal inquiry, which is complete, theCompany has concluded that an adjustment to its historicalfinancial statements is not required with respect to this matter.The SEC investigations with respect to the restatement and theallocation of time within a certain practice group are ongoing.The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC in itsinvestigations. As often happens in these circumstances, theUnited States Attorney's Office for the Northern District ofIllinois has contacted the Company's counsel. The USAO made atelephonic request for copies of certain documents that theCompany previously provided to the SEC, which the Company hasvoluntarily provided to the USAO.

In addition, these purported shareholder class action complaintswere filed in connection with the Company's restatement in theUnited States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois:

(1) a complaint in the matter of Jason Hughes v. Huron Consulting Group Inc., Gary E. Holdren and Gary L. Burge, filed on August 4, 2009;

On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Fisher voluntarily dismissedhis complaint. On November 16, 2009, the remaining suits wereconsolidated and the Public School Teachers' Pension & RetirementFund of Chicago, the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System,the City of Boston Retirement Board, the Cambridge RetirementSystem and the Bristol County Retirement System were appointedLead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complainton January 29, 2010. The consolidated complaint asserts claimsunder Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder against Huron Consulting Group, Inc., GaryHoldren and Gary Burge and claims under Section 20(a) of theExchange Act against Gary Holdren, Gary Burge and Wayne Lipski.The consolidated complaint contends that the Company and theindividual defendants issued false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's financial results and compliance withGAAP. Lead Plaintiffs request that the action be declared a classaction, and seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctiverelief, and reimbursement for fees and expenses incurred inconnection with the action, including attorneys' fees. OnMarch 30, 2010, Huron, Gary Burge, Gary Holdren and Wayne Lipskijointly filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. OnAugust 6, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. OnDecember 6, 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principlewith Lead Plaintiffs to settle the litigation (the Class ActionSettlement), pursuant to which the plaintiffs will receive totalconsideration of approximately $39.6 million, comprised of $27.0million in cash and the issuance by the Company of 474,547 sharesof the Company's common stock (the Settlement Shares). TheSettlement Shares had an aggregate value of approximately $12.6million based on the closing market price of the Company's commonstock on December 31, 2010. As a result of the Class ActionSettlement, the Company recorded a non-cash charge to earnings inthe fourth quarter of 2010, of $12.6 million representing the fairvalue of the Settlement Shares and a corresponding settlementliability.

During the first quarter of 2011, the Company recorded anadditional $0.6 million non-cash charge related to the SettlementShares to reflect the fair value of the Settlement Shares as ofMarch 31, 2011, which totaled $13.2 million, and a correspondingincrease to the Company's recorded settlement liability. TheCompany will continue to adjust the amount of the non-cash chargeand corresponding settlement liability to reflect changes in thefair value of the Settlement Shares until and including the dateof issuance, which may result in either additional non-cashcharges or non-cash gains. In accordance with the proposedsettlement, in the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company alsorecorded a receivable for the cash portion of the consideration,which was funded into escrow in its entirety by the Company'sinsurance carriers in the first quarter of 2011, and acorresponding settlement liability. There was no impact to theCompany's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the cashconsideration as the Company concluded that a right of setoffexisted in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic210-20-45, "Other Presentation Matters". The total amount ofinsurance coverage under the related policy was $35.0 million andthe insurers had previously paid out approximately $8.0 million inclaims prior to the final $27.0 million payment.

As a result of the final payment by the insurance carriers, theCompany will not receive any further contributions from theCompany's insurance carriers for the reimbursement of legal feesexpended on the finalization of the Class Action Settlement or anyamounts (including any damages, settlement costs or legal fees)with respect to the SEC investigation with respect to therestatement, the USAO's request for certain documents and thepurported private shareholder class action lawsuit and derivativelawsuits in respect of the restatement. The proposed Class ActionSettlement received preliminary court approval on January 21,2011, and is subject to final court approval and the issuance ofthe Settlement Shares. A Fairness Hearing is currently scheduledto consider final approval of the settlement on May 6, 2011. Theissuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to occur after finalcourt approval is granted. There can be no assurance that finalcourt approval will be granted. The proposed settlement containsno admission of wrongdoing. Additionally, the Company has theright to terminate the settlement if class members representingmore than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect toopt out of the settlement.

IBM CORP: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Alleged Invasion of Privacy----------------------------------------------------------------International Business Machines Corporation faces numerouspurported class actions in California in connection with itsinformation technology outsourcing agreement with Health Net,Inc., according to the Company's April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2011.

The Company is a co-defendant in numerous purported class actionsfiled on and after March 18, 2011, in federal and state courts inCalifornia in connection with an information technologyoutsourcing agreement between Health Net, Inc. and IBM. Thecomplaints allege numerous and different causes of action,including for violation of the California Confidentiality ofMedical Information Act, unfair competition, invasion of privacy,negligence, bailment and conversion, in connection with plaintiffshaving been notified that certain of their personal information isbelieved to be contained on hard drives that are unaccounted forat one of Health Net's data centers in California. Plaintiffs inthese cases seek damages, as well as injunctive and declaratoryrelief. IBM has also received a request for information regardingthis matter from the California Attorney General.

Residents in park homes in both South Devon and Cornwall arepreparing for a possible litigation case against sites owner J&BSmall Park Homes.

Residents' associations at nine of the 19 sites owned by theTaunton-based Smalls throughout the south west are understood tobe discussing a bid to seek legal damages. Three sites inPaignton and Chudleigh Knighton are involved in the initiativewhich is led by Tony Turner, chairman of the St Dominic ParkResidents' Association in Cornwall.

Mr. Turner, from Harrowbarrow, Cornwall, said he formed the JBSResidents Action Alliance in order to bring residents'associations and their members across the various countiestogether, to enable a class action for damages.

This means that rather than each resident bringing their ownindividual legal proceedings, they could all be amalgamated underone umbrella action.

Mr. Turner said he hoped to be able to make a group litigationapplication in court within the next five months. If successful,class action would then follow.

He said: "It's important that people stand up and be counted andare aware of this proposed class action.

"Before we can launch it we need to establish who is in it and howmuch damages we would seek.

"We feel we have enough information and evidence across all thesites the Smalls own to show that people have lost value on theirhomes."

He said that there were concerns over the way the sites have beenmaintained and issues over water and electricity bills.

The Smalls have denied the accusations against them, sayingthrough their lawyer David Osbourne that they consideredMr. Turner a 'troublemaker'.

The planned legal action comes less than three months after theSmalls were taken to court by Cornwall Council's trading standardsand agreed to trade lawfully after consenting to comply withconsumer protection legislation which stops them from using'aggressive practices'.

The Smalls have managed the Beechdown Park and Hillside Park inTotnes Road, Paignton, and the Buckingham Orchard in ChudleighKnighton for more than 10 years.

Some residents in the Paignton bungalow and caravan parks claimeda number of issues involving sewage, site safety and maintenancehad not been dealt with to their satisfaction.

Cornwall Council took the Smalls to court because of complaintsfrom residents at other park homes. A court order was made whenthe Smalls agreed to trade lawfully. The court order applies toall 19 sites.

One of the residents of Hillside Park in Paignton said she hopedthe floodgates would open as a result of any class action.

The resident, who did not want to be named, said she wasinterested in the class action because she had concerns over the'quality of life' for residents on the caravan park.

Mr. Osborne, a barrister representing the Smalls, said theyprovided accommodation to about 1,000 throughout the South West.

He said: "At all times J&B Small Park Homes applies the relevantlegislation when managing its parks, and in particular theprovisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

He added: "Residents are encouraged to raise any concerns, real orimagined, with the owners, and these concerns will be addressed ina proper and professional way.

"Legal proceedings are only used as a last resort where agreementcannot be reached."

JA SOLAR: Court to Consider Accord in Securities Suit on June 24----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork will consider final approval on June 24, 2011, of asettlement in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit inNew York, according to JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.'s April 26,2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2008, the Company was named as defendant in twoputative securities class actions filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York: Ellenburg v.JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 10475(filed on December 3, 2008) and Zhang v. JA Solar Holdings Co.,Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 08 CV 11366 (filed on December 31,2008). Huaijin Yang, the Company's former chief executiveofficer, and Daniel Lui, the Company's former chief financialofficer and chief strategy officer, were also named as defendantsin the two actions (which are substantially identical), underwhich the defendants were alleged to have committed securitiesfraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two casesin April 2009.

In February 2011, the Company reached an agreement in principle tosettle these securities class action lawsuits. Under the terms ofthe proposed settlement, a sum of US$ 4.5 million (less any awardof attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class that may beapproved by the Court) will be made available to shareholders whomay qualify for a distribution under the settlement. As part ofthe settlement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the action anddrop all claims against the Company and the individual defendants.The settlement is subject to the Court granting final approval ofthe settlement terms, which is set to be heard on June 24, 2011.

LENNOX INT'L: Hearing on "Keilholtz" Settlement Set for June 2--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californiaset June 2, 2011, as the hearing date for the final approval ofLennox International Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuitfiled by Keilholtz, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 6, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against theCompany in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, LennoxIndustries and Lennox International, Inc. The lawsuit, whichinvolves no personal injury claims, alleges that certain of theCompany's single-pane, glass-front, gas fireplaces are hazardousand that consumers were not adequately warned, and seeks economicdamages. On February 16, 2010, the court issued an ordercertifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs.

On August 23, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into abinding Memorandum of Understanding in this case and have reachedtentative terms for settlement of the case. At the parties'request, the court stayed the lawsuit shortly after the MOU wassigned. On January 11, 2011, the court granted preliminaryapproval of the settlement. The court set June 2, 2011 as thedate for the final approval hearing.

LEXISNEXIS SCREENING: Courthouse Corrects Error on Report---------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service disclosed that an April 22 New Listing,which reported on a federal class action against LexisNexisScreening Solutions and Igloo Products, contained an incorrectdescription of the allegations against Igloo Products. Thecomplaint does not allege that Igloo sold any reports toemployers. Rather, the complaint alleges that LexisNexisScreening Solutions sold Igloo Products consumer reports thatillegally included "criminal history that predates the report bymore than seven years," and that Igloo then refused to hire thelead plaintiff.

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Continues to Defend NY Securities Suit------------------------------------------------------------National Westminster Bank Plc continues to defend itself from aconsolidated class action lawsuit in New York alleging that theCompany released false and misleading statements in public filingsand other communications, according to the Company's April 26,2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

RBS Group, which is composed of The Royal Bank of Scotland Groupplc and its subsidiary undertakings, including NationalWestminster Bank Plc, and a number of its subsidiaries and certainindividual officers and directors have been named as defendants ina class action filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaintalleges certain false and misleading statements and omissions inpublic filings and other communications during the period March 1,2007, to January 19, 2009, and variously asserts claims underSections 11, 12 and 15 of the US Securities Act of 1933, Sections10 and 20 of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5thereunder.

The putative class is composed of (1) all persons who purchased orotherwise acquired RBSG ordinary securities and US Americandepositary receipts (ADRs) between March 1, 2007, and January 19,2009; and/or (2) all persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredRBSG Series Q, R, S, T and/or U non-cumulative dollar preferenceshares issued pursuant or traceable to the April 8, 2005 USSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration statementand were damaged thereby. Plaintiffs seek unquantified damages onbehalf of the putative class.

On January 11, 2011, the District Court dismissed all claimsexcept those based on the purchase of RBSG Series Q, R, S, T,and/or U non-cumulative dollar preference shares. The Court hasnot yet considered potential grounds for dismissal of theremaining claims, and RBS Group's motion to dismiss thoseremaining claims is to be submitted on a date which is still to bedetermined. In January and February 2011, two new complaints werefiled asserting claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the ExchangeAct on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of ADRs. A motionto consolidate those claims with the preference share claims iscurrently pending.

RBS Group has also received notification of similar prospectiveclaims in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but no courtproceedings have been commenced in relation to these claims.

RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal andfactual defences to the remaining and prospective claims and willdefend them vigorously. RBS Group is unable to reliably estimatethe liability, if any, that might arise or its effect on theGroup's consolidated net assets, operating results or cash flowsin any particular period.

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER: Defends Class Suits Over Securities Offering------------------------------------------------------------------National Westminster Bank Plc continues to defend itself againstpurported class action lawsuits alleging that the Company madefalse or misleading disclosures in connection with relevantofferings of securities, according to the Company's April 26,2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

RBS Group companies, which is composed of The Royal Bank ofScotland Group plc and its subsidiary undertakings, includingNational Westminster Bank Plc, have been named as defendants in anumber of purported class actions and other lawsuits in the UnitedStates that relate to the securitisation and securitiesunderwriting businesses. In general, the cases involve theissuance of mortgage backed securities, collateralised debtobligations, or public debt or equity where the plaintiffs havebrought actions against the issuers and underwriters of suchsecurities (including RBS Group companies) claiming that certaindisclosures made in connection with the relevant offerings of suchsecurities were false or misleading with respect to alleged "sub-prime" mortgage exposure.

RBS Group considers that it has substantial and credible legal andfactual defences to these claims and will continue to defend themvigorously. RBS Group says it cannot at this stage reliablyestimate the liability, if any, that may arise as a result of orin connection with these lawsuits, individually or in theaggregate, or their effect on the Group's consolidated net assets,operating results or cash flows in any particular period.

NETFLIX INC: Sued for Violating Video Privacy Protection Act------------------------------------------------------------Meghan Mollet and Tracy Hellwig, individually and on behalf ofothers similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01629(N.D. Calif. April 4, 2011), bring claims for violations of theVideo Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 et seq., andCalifornia Civil Code Section 1799.3 on behalf of all those whosubscribed to Netflix's services and streamed Netflix videosfrom the Internet through any Netflix ready device, at any timefrom two years prior to the dale of the filing of this Complaintthrough the present.

Plaintiffs relate that by automatically displaying variouscategorized lists of videos available for streaming from theInternet which Netflix calls "queues", on its subscribers' viewingscreens without providing subscribers with any option or means todelete, edit, hide, or otherwise prohibit others from viewing thequests, Netflix improperly and knowingly disclosed subscribers'personal identifiable information to everyone with access to thesubscriber's entertainment center such as subscribers' spouse,children, parents, other family members, friends, guests,visitors, roommates, or housemates, etc.

Meghan Mollett is a resident of Lansing, Michigan, while TracyHellwig is a resident of Lancaster, California. Plaintiffs areNetflix subscribers who view streaming videos from Netflix ontheir TV sets through a Netflix Ready Device.

Netflix, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains itsheadquarters at 100 Winchester Circle, in Los Gatos, Calif.,claims to be the world's largest subscription service streamingmovies and TV episodes over the Internet and sending DVDs by mail.

On April 6, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filedagainst the Company and certain current and former executiveofficers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and seeking damages, fees, costs and equitable relief. Thelawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Florida and is captioned Climo v. OfficeDepot, Inc, Steve Odland, Michael D. Newman and Neil R. Austrian.The allegations made in this lawsuit primarily relate to theCompany's previous financial disclosures and reports regardingcertain tax losses. By way of background, on March 31, 2011,Office Depot announced that the Internal Revenue Service haddenied the Company's claim to carry back certain tax losses toprior tax years under economic stimulus-based tax legislationenacted in 2009. As a result, on April 6, 2011, the Companyrestated its financial results to revise the accounting treatmentregarding its original tax position. The periods covered by therestatement were the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010, and thequarters ended June 26, 2010 and September 25, 2010.

SEAWELL LTD: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Texas--------------------------------------------------------------Seawell Limited continues to defend itself from variousstockholder class action lawsuits in Texas over its proposedmerger with Allis-Chalmers, according to the Company's April 26,2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning on August 16, 2010, seven putative stockholder classaction petitions were filed against various combinations of Allis-Chalmers, members of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors, theCompany, and Wellco in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,challenging the proposed merger and seeking, among other things,compensatory damages, attorneys' and experts' fees, declaratoryand injunctive relief concerning alleged breaches of fiduciaryduties and injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants fromconsummating the merger.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that theAgreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 12, 2010, by andamong Allis-Chalmers, the Company and Wellco Sub Company wasreached through an unfair process and that the consideration uponwhich the Merger Agreement is premised is inadequate; that thetransaction was timed to take advantage of an overall decline inthe market price of Allis-Chalmers stock and that the MergerAgreement unfairly caps the price of Allis-Chalmers stock; thatthe Merger Agreement's "no shop" provision unreasonably dissuadespotential suitors from making competing offers; and that theMerger Agreement otherwise unduly restricts Allis-Chalmers fromconsidering competing offers.

Beginning on August 26, 2010, various plaintiffs in these lawsuitsfiled competing motions to consolidate the suits, to appoint theircounsel as interim class counsel and to compel expediteddiscovery. On September 16, 2010, the defendants filed jointmotions to stay the Texas lawsuits in favor of a first-filedDelaware lawsuit, and opposing the motions for expediteddiscovery. There is no hearing date set for these motions. Theparties to the Texas State Court actions have agreed that thevarious defendants need not respond to the petitions until afterlead counsel is appointed, a consolidated amended petition isfiled and served or, alternatively, an active petition isdesignated by lead counsel.

SEAWELL LTD: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Amended Del. Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Seawell Limited is awaiting a decision on its motion to dismiss anamended complaint pending in Delaware Chancery Court challengingits proposed merger with Allis-Chalmers, according to theCompany's April 26, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2010.

Beginning on August 16, 2010, three putative stockholder classaction suits were filed against various combinations of Allis-Chalmers, members of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors, theCompany, and Wellco in the Court of Chancery of the State ofDelaware, challenging the proposed merger and seeking, among otherthings, compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys' andexperts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the allegedbreaches of fiduciary duties and prohibiting the defendants fromconsummating the merger.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the MergerAgreement was reached through an unfair process and that theconsideration upon which the Merger Agreement is premised isinadequate; that the transaction was timed to take advantage of anoverall decline in the market price of Allis-Chalmers stock; thatthe transaction unfairly favors the Company; that the MergerAgreement's "no shop" provision unreasonably dissuades potentialsuitors from making competing offers ;and that the MergerAgreement otherwise unduly restricts Allis-Chalmers fromconsidering competing offers.

On September 21, 2010, the plaintiffs in the three actions wrotethe Court seeking consolidation of the Delaware cases. Defendantsdid not oppose consolidation and took no position regarding leadplaintiff. On September 29, 2010, the Court granted the Motion toConsolidate. On September 16, 2010, the Company and Wellcoanswered the first-filed Girard Complaint (designated as theoperative complaint post-consolidation). Allis-Chalmers and themembers of the Allis-Chalmers board of directors answered theconsolidated complaint on October 4, 2010.

On January 26, 2011, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delawareactions filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint ForBreach Of Fiduciary Duty along with a motion to expediteproceedings. The Amended Complaint generally alleges, among otherthings, that the Merger Agreement was reached through an unfairprocess and that the consideration upon which the Merger Agreementis premised is inadequate; that the Allis-Chalmers board failed toinform itself adequately of the highest price reasonablyavailable; that the Allis-Chalmers board was conflicted and, thus,unable to fulfill its duties; that the transaction was timed totake advantage of an overall decline in the market price of Allis-Chalmers stock; that the transaction unfairly favors the Company;that the Merger Agreement's "no solicitation" provisionunreasonably dissuades potential suitors from making competingoffers; that the Merger Agreement otherwise unduly restrictsAllis-Chalmers from considering competing offers and that a votingagreement between the Company and Lime Rock Partners GP V, L.P.improperly restrains Allis-Chalmers from engaging with thirdparties regarding an alternative proposal. The amended complaintalleges that Allis-Chalmers, the Company, and Wellco aided andabetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

In addition, the Amended Complaint contains allegations that theRegistration Statement filed on Form F-4 filed with the SEC onJanuary 14, 2011, and amended on January 21, 2011, failed toproperly disclose all material facts in connection with theproposed merger, in violation of Delaware law.

At a February 3, 2011 hearing, Vice Chancellor John W. Noble ofthe Delaware Court of Chancery, denied plaintiffs' motion toexpedite proceedings. On February 9, 2011, the Company filed amotion to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Court of ChanceryRule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief maybe granted.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intendsto defend them vigorously.

SHERWIN WILLIAMS: 4th Amended "Santa Clara County" Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------------A fourth amended complaint and a claim for public nuisance filedby plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County,California is pending, according to The Sherwin-Williams Company'sApril 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A Santa Clara County, California proceeding was initiated in March2000 and purports to be a class action on behalf of all publicentities in the State of California other than the State and itsagencies. The plaintiffs' asserted various claims including fraudand concealment, strict product liability/failure to warn, strictproduct liability/design defect, negligence, negligent breach of aspecial duty, public nuisance, private nuisance, and violations ofCalifornia's Business and Professions Code. A number of theasserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants throughpre-trial proceedings. On March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeal,Sixth Appellate District, among other determinations, reversed thedismissal of the public nuisance claim for abatement brought bythe cities of Santa Clara and Oakland and the City and County ofSan Francisco, and affirmed the dismissal of the public nuisanceclaim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties. The proceedingsin the trial court were stayed pending the judicial resolution ofthe plaintiffs' right to retain private counsel on a contingencybasis and, on March 16, 2011, the plaintiffs' filed their fourthamended complaint and asserted a claim for public nuisance.

SIGMA ALDRICH: Class Suit Against Unit Still Pending in Ohio------------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit filed against a unit of Sigma-AldrichCorporation in Ohio remains pending, according to the Company'sApril 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of theCompany in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleasrelated to a 2003 explosion in a column at the Company's Isotecfacility in Miamisburg, Ohio. The case was separated into thefollowing four phases: phase one -- existence of liability, phasetwo -- quantification of any compensatory damages, phase three --existence of any punitive damages, and phase four --quantification of any punitive damages. Class certification wasgranted to phases one, three and four, but denied to phase two.Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established beforethe case can proceed to the punitive damages phases. The Companyhas accepted responsibility for phase one, existence of liability.The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individuallyestablish actual damages. There have been two phase twocompensatory damages trials involving 58 plaintiffs in total, withthe jury verdicts in those two trials establishing actual damagesof approximately two hundred thirty-three dollars per plaintiff.A Court-ordered mediation of the various claims alleged in thismatter took place in March 2011.

The Company believes its reserves and insurance are sufficient toprovide for claims outstanding at March 31, 2011. While theoutcome of the current claims cannot be predicted with certainty,the possible outcome of the claims is reviewed at least quarterlyand reserves adjusted as deemed appropriate based on thesereviews. Based on current information available, the Companybelieves that the ultimate resolution of these matters will nothave a material adverse effect on its consolidated financialcondition, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Futureclaims related to the use of these categories of products may notbe covered in full by the Company's insurance program.

SIOUX FALLS, SD: May 16 Trial Set for Drain System Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Jamie Stubbe, writing for KSFY Action News, reports that a classaction lawsuit against the Sioux Falls sewer and storm drainsystems is headed for trial this summer.

The suit involves more than 200 families that had their homesflooded in 2004.

The suit claims the city was negligent and knew that they did nothave adequate drainage in place to protect homes in basin areas ofthe city.

According to the Complaint, SONY failed to keep safe theircustomers' sensitive, private, financial information safe and topromptly notify its customers of the data breach, despite thefact that SONY was aware of the breach for at least a week. Evenwhen SONY did notify its customers of the breach, it did soindirectly, by posting a message online, instead of contactingeach customer directly.

Ms. Chi, a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is aPlayStation Network subscriber.

SONY sell and distribute the Sony PlayStation 3, a widely popularentertainment and gaming platform, throughout the United States,and operate the PlayStation Network, which has millions ofsubscribers. SONY operates the "Qriocity Services," which allowowners of SONY devices such as the PS3 to download entertainmentcontent including video games, movies, TV shows, and music,directly to those SONY devices.

On April 26, 2011, SONY announced that a hacker has obtained thepersonal and financial information of PlayStation Network accountholders and subscribers of the Qriocity streaming services,including, name, address, country, email address, birthdate,PlayStation Network/Qriocity password and login, and handle/PSNonline ID; breached data also included, potentially, thecustomers' profile data, including credit card numbers, cardexpiration dates, purchase history and billing address (city,state, zip), the customers' PlayStation Network/Qriocity passwordsecurity answers, as well as same data for any authorizedsub-accounts for customers' dependents.

According to the Complaint, the breach of this personal andfinancial data occurred between April 17 and 19, 2011, but SONYdid not notify its customers indirectly until at least a weeklater. The notification on April 26, 2011, was not a directmessage to the customers but, rather, a post onhttp://blog.us.playstation.com

As a result of Sony's grossly inadequate security, plaintiff Efirdrelates, one or more computer hackers gained access to thesensitive PII and potentially credit card information ofapproximately 77 million users of the Sony PlayStation Network.Mr. Efird adds that Sony waited nearly a week after it learned ofthe security breach before it publicly announced that its users'personal information had been compromised.

During the interim period, Sony also shut down the PSN for allregistered users, including those who paid for premium oradditional games and services on the PSN, depriving these users ofproducts and services that they had purchased and could onlyaccess through the PSN.

"Moreover, Sony unreasonably delayed in informing PSN users of thesecurity breach for nearly a week, preventing consumers fromtaking prompt and reasonable steps to attempt to secure theirpersonal and Financial data," according to the Complaint.

STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Connecticut---------------------------------------------------------------Sturm Ruger & Company, Inc., continues to defend itself from aconsolidated lawsuit alleging violations of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, according to the Company's April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

On August 18, 2009, the Company was served with a complaintcaptioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itselfand All Others Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., etal. pending in the United States District Court for the Districtof Connecticut. The complaint seeks unspecified damages foralleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is apurported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company'scommon stock between April 23, 2007, and October 29, 2007. OnOctober 9, 2009, the Company waived service of a complaintcaptioned Alan R. Herrett, Individually and On Behalf of AllOthers Similarly Situated v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc., et al.pending in the United States District Court for the District ofConnecticut. This matter is based upon the same facts and basicallegations set forth in the Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fundlitigation. On October 12, 2009, a motion to consolidate the twoactions was filed by counsel for the Steamfitters. On January 11,2010, the court entered an order consolidating the two matters. Aconsolidated amended complaint was filed on March 11, 2010.

The defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismisson April 26, 2010, and plaintiffs filed a response on June 18,2010. Defendants then filed a reply in support of the motion onJuly 19, 2010. Oral argument was held on November 22, 2010. OnFebruary 4, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the motionto dismiss in part and denying it in part. The matter is ongoingand no scheduling order has yet been entered.

The Company says punitive damages, as well as compensatorydamages, are demanded in certain of the lawsuits and claims.Aggregate claimed amounts presently exceed product liabilityaccruals and applicable insurance coverage. For claims made afterJuly 10, 2000, coverage is provided on an annual basis for lossesexceeding $5 million per claim, or an aggregate maximum loss of$10 million annually, except for certain new claims which might bebrought by governments or municipalities after July 10, 2000,which are excluded from coverage.

The Company management monitors the status of known claims and theproduct liability accrual, which includes amounts for asserted andunasserted claims. While it is not possible to forecast theoutcome of litigation or the timing of costs, in the opinion ofmanagement, after consultation with special and corporate counsel,it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, includingpunitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on thefinancial position of the Company, but may have a material impacton the Company's financial results for a particular period.

SUBAYE INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New York-----------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard LLP on April 29 disclosed that a lawsuit hasbeen filed in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York on behalf of a class of investors whopurchased Subaye, Inc. securities between the period of Dec. 29,2009 to April 7, 2011. Plaintiffs allege violations of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934 against Subaye and certainindividual defendants.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities lawsagainst Subaye and its officers and directors for issuingmaterially false and misleading financial statements to investors.On April 7, 2011, the Company disclosed that its auditor,PricewaterhouseCoopers Hong Kong, had resigned. PwC identifiedmatters that may materially impact the fairness and reliability ofSubaye's quarterly financial information for the three monthsended December 31, 2010 and may cause PwC to be unwilling to relyon management's representations.

TEMPUR PEDIC: Jacob's Plea for En Banc Review of Ruling Pending---------------------------------------------------------------A petition for an "en banc" review of a circuit court ruling in anantitrust class action lawsuit remains pending, according toTempur-Pedic International Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2011.

On January 5, 2007, a purported class action was filed against theCompany in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia, Rome Division (Jacobs v. Tempur-PedicInternational, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, Inc., or theAntitrust Action). The Antitrust Action alleges violations offederal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedicmattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certaindistributors. The action alleges a class of all purchasers ofTempur-Pedic mattresses in the United States since January 5,2003, and seeks damages and injunctive relief. Count Two of thecomplaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007, based on amotion filed by the Company. Following a decision issued by theUnited States Supreme Court in Leegin Creative Leather Prods.,Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. on June 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion todismiss the remaining two counts of the Antitrust Action onJuly 10, 2007. On December 11, 2007, that motion was granted and,as a result, judgment was entered in favor of the Company and theplaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. OnDecember 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter orAmend Judgment," which was fully briefed. On May 1, 2008, thatmotion was denied. Jacobs appealed the dismissal of their claims,and the parties argued the appeal before the United States CircuitCourt for the Eleventh Circuit on December 11, 2008. The Courtrendered an opinion favorable to the Company on December 2, 2010,affirming the trial court's refusal to allow Jacobs to alter oramend its pleadings and dismissing its claims. Jacobs hassubsequently petitioned the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an"en banc" review of the three judge panel's ruling.

The Company says it continues to strongly believe that theAntitrust Action lacks merit, and intends to defend against theclaims vigorously. Based on the findings of the court to date andan assessment of the Company's meritorious defenses, the Companybelieves that it is remote that it will incur a loss with respectto this matter. However, due to the inherent uncertainties oflitigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of theAntitrust Action at this time, and can give no assurance thatthese claims will not have a material adverse affect on theCompany's financial position or results of operation.Accordingly, the Company cannot make an estimate of the possiblerange of loss.

Basically, they're suing over the fact that Twitter sent aconfirmatory SMS to their cellphone after they themselves used anSMS command ('STOP') meant to turn off all phone notifications.

The two men allege that Twitter has engaged in unlawful conduct bycontacting them on their mobile phones without their consent,which they say is a violation of the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct of 1991 (TCPA) and an invasion of their privacy.

Here's the relevant part in the lawsuit documents:

* At some point Plaintiffs decided that they no longer wantedto receive text message notifications on their cellular telephonefrom Defendant.

* Plaintiffs then responded to Defendant's last text messagenotification by replying "stop," as instructed by Twitter.

* At this point, Plaintiffs withdrew any express or impliedconsent to receive text message notification to their cellulartelephone that they may have previous given Twitter.

* In response to receiving this revocation of consent,Defendant then immediately sent another, unsolicited, confirmatorytext message to Plaintiffs' cellular telephones.

Messrs. Moss and Maleksaeedi says an "automatic telephone dialingsystem" was employed to deliver the confirmatory message, and thatthey incurred a charge for incoming calls as a result. This isillegal, the two men claim, because the message in question wasnot sent for emergency purposes and without prior consent given.

According to the lawsuit documents, Messrs. Moss and Maleksaeediseek up to $1,500 in damages for each call in alleged violation ofthe TCPA, which, when aggregated among a proposed class number inthe "tens of thousands", would exceed the $5 million threshold forfederal court jurisdiction. The suit is expressly not intended torequest any recovery for personal injury.

U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Illinois-----------------------------------------------------------In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individualdirect or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted thateight steel manufacturers, including United States SteelCorporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrictthe domestic production of raw steel and, thereby, to fix, raise,maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the UnitedStates. The cases are filed as class actions and claim trebledamages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege anydamage amounts.

U. S. Steel says it is vigorously defending these lawsuits anddoes not believe that it has any liability regarding thesematters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

WEST PUBLISHING: Bar Review Course Class Action Settled-------------------------------------------------------If you paid for a BAR/BRI full-service bar-review course fromAugust 1, 2006, through and including March 21, 2011, a class-action settlement reached in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California called Stetson, et al. v. WestPublishing Corporation d/b/a BAR/BRI and Kaplan, Inc., Case No.CV-08-00810 R (Ex), may affect your rights. This is a summarynotice published to supplement the written notice being mailed toClass Members, which describes the nature of Plaintiffs' claims,Class Members' right to file a claim for a portion of theSettlement Fund, and the mailing to Class Members of fullytransferrable Discount Certificates that, under the Settlement,would be redeemable toward the future purchase of Kaplan courses.

What Is This Case About?

BAR/BRI provides full-service bar-review courses throughout theUnited States aimed at assisting law-school graduates to prepareto take one or more of the bar examinations that are required byeach state and the District of Columbia before an attorney obtainsa license to practice law. Plaintiffs alleged that BAR/BRIviolated federal antitrust laws by agreeing with Kaplan to limitcompetition in the market for full-service bar review courses.West is the owner of BAR/BRI and is a Defendant for that reason.The other Defendant is Kaplan. Plaintiffs alleged that BAR/BRIagreed not to compete in the LSAT business and that Kaplan agreednot to compete in the bar-review business, thereby allocating toBAR/BRI the market for full-service bar-review courses in theUnited States and preventing a competitive bar-review course frombeing marketed and sold.

Plaintiffs also alleged that BAR/BRI unlawfully acquired andmaintained a monopoly in the market for full-service bar-reviewcourses in the United States and also conspired to monopolize thatmarket, all through a variety of means. As a result, Plaintiffsalleged that competition in the relevant market was adverselyaffected.

Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and contend that theirconduct was legal. The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs'claims with prejudice. While that dismissal was on appeal, theparties entered into a proposed settlement.

What Is the Benefit of the Settlement to Me?

West has agreed to pay the total sum of $5,285,000, which sumshall be used to make distributions to and for the benefit ofClass Members who submit properly completed and timely Claim Formsif the Settlement is approved by the Court; to pay attorney's feesand expenses approved by the Court; the costs of providing noticeto the Class; fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator, asapproved by the Court; and fees associated with the administrationand maintenance of the Settlement Fund, as approved by the Court.

In addition to the Settlement Fund established by West, Kaplan hasmailed one Discount Certificate to each Class Member. Also, foreach additional full-service bar-review course other than a full-service bar-review course for a price discounted by fifty percent(50%) or more for which a Class Member has paid during the ClassPeriod, the Class Member is being mailed an additional DiscountCertificate. Each Discount Certificate will be valid for thirty(30) months, will be fully transferable (regardless of whether thetransferee is a Class Member and regardless of whether thetransfer is in the nature of a gift, a barter transaction, anonline auction or sale such as eBay or Craig's List, or any otherlegal form of transaction), and will be redeemable toward thefuture purchase of one qualifying Kaplan course, if the Settlementis approved by the Court.

How Do I Make a Claim for a Portion of the Settlement Fund?

To receive a cash payment from the Settlement Fund, you mustcomplete and submit a Claim form and mail it, postmarked no laterthan May 30, 2011. To request a Notice and Claim Form, you maycall the Claims Administrator at 1-888-293-3337 and request that aNotice and Claim Form be mailed to you, or you may download athttp://www.gilardi.com/barbrisettlement

What Is the Amount of the Cash Payment that I Will Receive fromthe Settlement Fund?

Again, after deducting attorney's fees and costs, and anadditional amount to be paid to the Claims Administrator foradministering the Settlement (in an amount to be approved by theCourt), the Settlement Fund will be paid to eligible Class Memberswho have timely submitted the Claim Forms. Each such ClassMember's Award will be calculated based on (a) the amount paid byeach such Class Member as indicated on the Claim Form and (b) thenumber and amount of timely claims submitted by all Class Members.Each Class Member's Distribution Ratio will then be calculated bydividing his or her claim by all timely and valid claims. TheClass Member's Award is the product of his or Distribution Ratioand the Settlement Fund (after deducting attorney's fees and costsand an additional amount to be paid to the Claims Administratorfor administering the Settlement), assuming the Settlement isapproved by the Court.

What If I Have Questions?

The foregoing is only a summary of the proposed Settlement. Formore detailed information, you may review the pleadings on file inthe Action, which pleadings may be inspected at the Clerk'sOffice, United States District Court, 312 North Spring Street, LosAngeles, California 90012. In addition, copies of this Notice;the pleadings in the Action; the Stipulation and SettlementAgreement among Plaintiffs, West, and Kaplan; and other documentsare available at http://www.gilardi.com/barbrisettlement

Any questions you have concerning the Action, the Settlement, orthis Notice should be directed to the Claims Administrator or toClass Counsel -- not to Court personnel. You may contact theClaims Administrator at the following address:

YUM BRANDS: Trial on Taco Bell RGM Suit Set for Feb. 6, 2012------------------------------------------------------------Trial in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Taco BellCorp. alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws isscheduled to begin February 6, 2012, according to YUM! Brands,Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against TacoBell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed inOrange County Superior Court. On August 7, 2006, another putativeclass action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits werefiled by a Taco Bell Restaurant General Manager (RGM) purportingto represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California since August 2002. The lawsuitsallege violations of California's wage and hour laws involvingunpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecifiedamounts in damages and penalties. The cases were consolidated inSan Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their classcertification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal courtin San Diego on August 29, 2008. On March 17, 2009, the courtgranted plaintiffs' motion to remand. On January 29, 2010, thecourt granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion withrespect to the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and Market TrainingManagers but denied class certification on the meal period claims.The parties participated in mediation on May 26, 2010, withoutreaching resolution. The court has ruled that this case will betried to the bench rather than a jury. That trial is scheduled tobegin on February 6, 2012.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. The Company has provided fora reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit. However, inview of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be noassurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess ofthose currently provided for in the Company's CondensedConsolidated Financial Statements.

YUM BRANDS: Hearing on Wage Suit Class Cert. Motion Set for June 6------------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on a motion for class certification in the lawsuitstyled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions has been scheduledfor June 6, 2011, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On September 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco BellCorp., the Company and other related entities styled SandrikaMedlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California. The casewas filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked atcorporate-owned restaurants in California since September 2003 andalleges numerous violations of California labor laws includingunpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial ofmeal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid businessexpenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation ofCalifornia Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The Companywas dismissed from the case without prejudice on January 10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys GeneralAct complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the Company and otherrelated entities. This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman vs. TacoBell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman individuallyand all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. The complaintseeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code.On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding classaction allegations on behalf of hourly employees in Californiavery similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaidovertime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements,non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed businessexpenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation ofCalifornia Business & Professions Code Section 17200. On July 25,2008, the case was removed to Federal Court in the EasternDistrict of California.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against TacoBell Corp. and the Company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco BellCorp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. The casewas filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other Californiahourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure toprovide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upondischarge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfairbusiness practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice onAugust 20, 2008.

On November 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against TacoBell Corp. and the Company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco BellCorp., et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court. Thecase was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all otherCalifornia employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failureto reimburse for business related expenses, improper wagestatements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to payminimum wage and unfair business practices. The case was removedto District Court and subsequently transferred to the EasternDistrict of California. The Company filed a motion to dismiss onDecember 15, 2008, which was denied on January 20, 2009.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative classaction lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against TacoBell and the Company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., etal. The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former Californiahourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individualsemployed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers andalleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices andconversion. Taco Bell removed the case to federal district courtand filed a notice of related case. On June 18, 2009, the casewas transferred to the Eastern District of California.

On December 1, 2010, a putative class action styled Teresa Nave v.Taco Bell Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. was filed in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofCalifornia, Fresno division. The plaintiff seeks to represent aCalifornia state-wide class of hourly employees who allegedly werenot timely paid all earned vacation at the end of their employmentand were denied required rest breaks. Plaintiff additionallyseeks statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleges violations ofCalifornia's Unfair Business Practices Act (B&P Code Section 17200et. seq.). On December 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a FirstAmended Complaint adding three individuals as named plaintiffs.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion toconsolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, andthe consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and HourActions. On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss,stay or consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell Wageand Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate wasgranted on October 19, 2009. On December 16, 2010, the courtordered the Nave matter consolidated with In Re Taco Bell Wage andHour Actions.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed aconsolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010,the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Companyfrom the action. The parties participated in mediation onAugust 5, 2010, without reaching resolution. Plaintiffs filedtheir motion for class certification on December 30, 2010, and thehearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion has beenscheduled for June 6, 2011. Plaintiffs have filed a motion toamend their class action complaint and to include an additionalnamed plaintiff.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of theinherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this casecannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of anypotential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled MariselaRosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County SuperiorCourt. The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, allegesthat Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upontermination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties onbehalf of herself and similarly situated employees. This caseappears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and HourActions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court onNovember 5, 2009, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stayor transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re TacoBell Wage and Hour Actions case. The parties stipulated to remandof the case to Orange County Superior Court on March 18, 2010.The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosalescase on May 28, 2010, but required Taco Bell to give notice toRosales' counsel of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actionsmediation. The matter remains stayed.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of theinherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this casecannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of anypotential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

On October 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled DomoniqueHines v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California statecourt on behalf of all California hourly employees allegingvarious California Labor Code violations, including rest and mealbreak violations, overtime violations, wage statement violationsand waiting time penalties. Plaintiff is a former non-managerialKFC restaurant employee. KFC filed an answer on October 28, 2009,in which it denied plaintiff's claims and allegations. KFCremoved the action to the United States District Court for theSouthern District of California on October 29, 2009. Plaintifffiled a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010, and KFCfiled a brief in opposition. On October 22, 2010, the DistrictCourt granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the mealand rest break claims, but denied the motion to certify a classregarding alleged off-the-clock work. On November 1, 2010, KFCfiled a motion requesting a stay of the case pending a decisionfrom the California Supreme Court regarding the applicablestandard for employer provision of meal and rest breaks.Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010.On January 14, 2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion andstayed the entire action pending a decision from the CaliforniaSupreme Court. No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against allclaims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherentuncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot bepredicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potentialloss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM BRANDS: Second Amended Suit vs. KFC Still Pending------------------------------------------------------A second amended complaint commenced by Lisa Harrison and NoeRivera against KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and KFCCorporation in California remains pending, according to Yum!Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,2011.

On August 18, 2010, a putative class action, styled Lisa Harrisonand Noe Rivera v. KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., andKFC Corporation, was filed in California state court on behalf ofall former California hourly employees alleging various CaliforniaLabor Code violations, including failure to pay all vacation pay,failure to reimburse business expenses (mileage and uniforms), andwaiting time penalties, as well as a claim of unfair competition.KFC removed the action to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California on October 4, 2010, and the casewas transferred to the Central District of California onOctober 27, 2010. On December 14, 2010, the court granted KFC'smotion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third cause of action (Plaintiffs'claim for reimbursement of expenses). Plaintiffs filed a FirstAmended Complaint on December 28, 2010. The First AmendedComplaint contained the same causes of action as the initialcomplaint, along with a request for penalties pursuant to theCalifornia Private Attorneys General Act. In response to KFC'sstated intention to file a motion to dismiss the First AmendedComplaint, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint onFebruary 20, 2011. No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against allclaims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherentuncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this case cannot bepredicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potentialloss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM BRANDS: Exemplar Trial in "Moeller" Suit Set for June 6-----------------------------------------------------------An exemplar trial in a class action lawsuit styled Moeller, et al.v. Taco Bell Corp. is set to begin June 6, 2011, according to Yum!Brands, Inc.'s April 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19,2011.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as a defendant in aclass action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. TacoBell Corp. On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amendedcomplaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell hasdiscriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs orscooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural andstructural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to thepath of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans withDisabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the CaliforniaDisabled Persons Act. Plaintiffs have requested: (a) aninjunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to complywith the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that theDistrict Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, theUnruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the UnruhAct or CDPA. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking theminimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under theUnruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member ofthe class. Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'motion for class certification. The class includes claims forinjunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion forPartial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that TacoBell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specificissues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. OnAugust 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part withregard to dining room seating. In addition, the court grantedplaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force atsome restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regardto queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and againon March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution. On December 16,2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment onthe ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list ofremaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject ofa trial. The court has ordered the exemplar trial to begin onJune 6, 2011. The trial will be bifurcated and the first stagewill address equitable relief and whether violations existed atthe restaurant. Taco Bell will have the opportunity to renew itsmotion for summary judgment on those issues and the opportunity tomove to decertify the class. A case currently pending before theU.S. Supreme Court, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., may impact theissue of class certification. Depending on the findings in thefirst stage of the trial and the court's rulings on motions forsummary judgment or class de-certification, the court may addressthe issue of damages in a separate, second stage.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. Taco Bell has taken steps toaddress potential architectural and structural compliance issuesat the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federaldisability access laws. The costs associated with addressingthese issues have not significantly impacted the Company's resultsof operations. It is not possible at this time to reasonablyestimate the probability or amount of liability for monetarydamages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.

YUM BRANDS: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Pizza Hut, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion todismiss a second amended complaint in the class action lawsuitfiled by Mark Smith in Colorado, according to Yum! Brands, Inc.'sApril 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.Pizza Hut, Inc., was filed in the United States District Court forthe District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that Pizza Hutdid not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for variousautomobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expensesand seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwideunder the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditionalcertification of a nationwide class of current and former PizzaHut, Inc., delivery drivers. However, on March 11, 2010, thecourt granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure tostate a claim, with leave to amend. On March 31, 2010, plaintiffsfiled an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform claims but,in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-law classaction claims under the laws of 16 different states. Pizza Hutfiled a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffssought leave to amend their complaint a second time. On August 9,2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend. Pizza Huthas filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.The court has yet to rule on Pizza Hut's motion.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of theinherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of these casescannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of anypotential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

YUM BRANDS: Awaits Arbitration Plea Ruling in "Whittington" Case------------------------------------------------------------------Taco Bell of America, Inc., and Taco Bell Corp. are awaiting aruling on their motion to compel arbitration of certain employeesin the putative class action lawsuit filed by JacquelynWhittington in Colorado, according to Yum Brands, Inc.'s April 26,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 19, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled JacquelynWhittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. andTaco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court forthe District of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks to represent anationwide class, with the exception of California, of salariedassistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did notreceive compensation for all hours worked and did not receiveovertime pay after 40 hours in a week. The plaintiff alsopurports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistantmanagers under Colorado state law, which provides for dailyovertime after 12 hours in a day. The Company has been dismissedfrom the case without prejudice. Taco Bell filed its answer onSeptember 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery,which is currently on-going. Taco Bell has moved to compelarbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defendagainst all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of theinherent uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of this casecannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of anypotential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.